JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. The order impugned dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the learned 3rd Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in eviction suit No.38 of 2007 allowing the application of the opposite party/defendant under Section 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 holding that the deposit made by the opposite party/defendant for the period starting from March, 2007 to July, 2010 in respect of one room situated at ground floor of 28/1, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta- 06 as valid deposits keeping aside the dispute regarding the address of the premises. 2. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the plaintiff/petitioner submits that the claim and contention of landlord/plaintiff/petitioner is that the opposite party is the tenant in respect of one room at ground floor of premises No.28, Dhiren Sen Sarani, Calcutta-06. The opposite party/defendant knowing fully well that he is a tenant in respect of one room on the ground floor of 28, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta-06 deliberately and intentionally deposited rent for the aforementioned period in respect of one room situated at ground floor of 28/1, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta-06. 3. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that learned Court below curiously enough did not decide in respect of which premises opposite party is a tenant and made a remark that the disputes as regards the address of the tenancy is kept aside but it was tentatively hold by the concerned court that the deposit made with the Rent Controller for the period starting from September, 1986 to June, 1989, October, 1994 to April, 1995 are all valid deposits. Learned Court erroneously recorded that this a tentative finding and not a final form of decision. 4. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the learned Court below without deciding the premises number cannot possibly hold that these deposits are valid deposits and passed an order in favour of the opposite party/defendant on his application under Section 7(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1997. 5. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that this is now settled proposition of law that if the first deposit is invalid then all subsequent deposits are invalid. He submits that the document relating to tendering monthly rent was never produced. He submits unless prior tender is proved all deposits are invalid. He further submitted that there are several judgments in this regard. 5. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that this is now settled proposition of law that if the first deposit is invalid then all subsequent deposits are invalid. He submits that the document relating to tendering monthly rent was never produced. He submits unless prior tender is proved all deposits are invalid. He further submitted that there are several judgments in this regard. He submitted there are judgments of this Hon’ble Court wherein it was held that any false statement or incorrect description of the tenancy made wilfully and negligently not only in the deposit for the initial month but also for subsequent months of deposit would entail forfeiture of the tenant’s right of protection against ejectment on the ground of default. 6. Mr. Bhattacharyya, cited a decision reported in 86 C.W.N. 495 (Kartick Chandra Paul & Anr. v. Monorama Dassi & Anr.). He has referred paragraph 4, which is quoted below: - “We find no substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants that only a mistake in the application by the tenant for making the deposit for the initial month would be fatal to the validity of the deposits made in the office of the Rent Controller and that the error, if any, in making the subsequent deposits in the office of the Rent Controller would be of no consequence. Sub section 2 of Section 22 of the Act has clearly provided that no deposit shall be considered to have been validly deposited if the tenant wilfully or negligently makes any false statement in his application for depositing rent unless the landlord has withdrawn the amount deposited before the institution of the suit for recovery of possession. Therefore, any false statement made wilfully or negligently not only in the deposit for the initial month but also for any subsequent month of deposit would entail forfeiture of the tenant’s right of protection against ejectment on the ground of default. In the instant case, the tenant was clearly negligent in making a false statement in some of the chalans about the surname of the defendant no.2 and in some of the chalans about the correct description of the tenancy. These particulars are required to be correctly given both in the application in Form 1 and in the chalan Form 2 prescribed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules, 1956.” 7. Mr. These particulars are required to be correctly given both in the application in Form 1 and in the chalan Form 2 prescribed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Rules, 1956.” 7. Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in law and there is non-application of mind of the learned Court below. He submitted that unless and until the premise is determined, learned Court below could not have decided the validity of the deposits. He submitted that the order impugned should be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/defendant submitted that previously there was a suit instituted by the landlord/plaintiff/petitioner claiming the opposite party a licensee but learned Court below decided that they are tenants. He submitted there are different documents, which will show that the opposite party/defendant is a tenant in respect of one room situated at ground floor of 28/1, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta-06. 9. Mr. Roy submitted the findings are tentative therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned Court below. He further submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below do not suffer any illegality or material irregularity. He submitted that the order impugned should not be interfered with. He further submitted that there is no merit in this revisional application. 10. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Plain reading of the order shows that the learned Court below did not decide the premises in which opposite party/defendant is a tenant. Unless and until, the premises number is decided by the learned Court below, learned Court below cannot hold either tentatively or finally or otherwise that the deposits are all valid deposits. On that score, the order is not sustainable. Further the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner is in respect of premises no.28, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta-06. Therefore, learned Court below ought not to have accepted the deposits as valid when all such deposits are made as regards premises number 28/1, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta-06. On that score, the order is not sustainable. Further the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner is in respect of premises no.28, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta-06. Therefore, learned Court below ought not to have accepted the deposits as valid when all such deposits are made as regards premises number 28/1, Harituki Bagan Lane, Calcutta-06. However, this Hon’ble Court in case of Kartick Chandra Paul & Anr.(supra) have already held that if all the deposits are made in respect of different premises either by mistake or by negligence then the responsibility would be of the tenant and the tenant would not be entitled to get any protection under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which is Section 17(3) under the Old Act and New Section 7(2) of the present Act. 11. In my considered view the order impugned is erroneous in law and suffers material irregularity and as such not sustainable. Therefore, impugned order is set aside. 12. Learned Court below is directed to decide afresh the application under Section 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 within eight weeks from date taking into account the observations made by this court. 13. Accordingly this revisional application is allowed. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.